Iranian war

At least on some subjects, we can agree.

The world would be peaceful, but dreadfully dull if we agreed on everything

I've been honest with you from the start.

I'll start addressing your points again when you stop saying that I lack honesty.

That’s what I think about heaven.

Honest people will:
- test the stories they are told
- keep an open mind about the possibilities
- look at both (or all) sides of the story
- will look through other peoples eyes (particularly if they wrong them)
- admit they caused suffering when they caused suffering (regardless of the reason for doing so)
- admit to hypocrisy when they see it pointed out in their actions
- question / look more closely at motives of another if they see them engaging in ongoing hypocrisy
- will check if the words match the actions, and question the words if they don't match the action (or pattern of actions)

You are barely doing any of these.

So quite frankly, if you were going to reply and keep doing this - then I agree - it's pointless you replying.

That's a lie.

If you say so - but such is only self deception. Here it is laid out for you. You can't show otherwise.

-------------

A. test the stories they are told
- as a whole, you have never talked about the base facts of your countries invasions (who did what, who suffered, who benefited)
- you never consider (in this case even admit) to suffering, and
- you avoid talking about how America benefits each time.
You can't test for truth in stories and avoid such. It's self deceptive at best, dishonest at worst.

B. keep an open mind about the possibilities
- everything is interpreted in your favour, and you dismiss out of hand multiple studies
- you don't even admit to the minute possiblity of other alternatives

C. Look at both (or all) sides of the story.
- You have shown you don't look at your own hypocrisy (as an outsider looking in - the U.S. propping up dictatorships while claiming to defend democracy),
- you don't look at / talk about the suffering the other side goes through as a result of U.S. actions
- you've never mentioned how it would look from their perspective

D. Will look through other peoples eyes (particularly if they wrong them).
- No, not one mentions about U.S. actions from the point of view of the people of the country they invaded, or ran coups in.

E. admit they caused suffering when they caused suffering (regardless of the reason for doing so).
No, not one mention of this.

F. admit to hypocrisy when they see it pointed out in their actions
No. Never said the words that the U.S. is hypocritical for propping up dictators while claiming to defend democracy

G. question / look more closely at motives of another if they see them engaging in ongoing hypocrisy
- See F.
- haven't been able to bring yourself to talk about the hypocrisy, so haven't shown any evidence of looking more closely whatsoever

H. will check if the words match the actions, and question the words if they don't match the action (or pattern of actions)
- didn't do this - I asked you to go through each country you invaded, and look at the actions out outcomes (who suffered, who benefited), and when I mentioned the Island nations the U.S. invaded, you went 'what Island Nations?' - so you didn't check.
- You haven't even talked about the underlying facts (who did what, who suffered, who benefited) as a whole - ie all three parts in one sentence or paragraph. If you do this for each invasion, you start seeing a pattern. But you haven't done this, even though you were asked to, so you can't check.
- You only talk about the 'reason' <which are the words you are trying to check against the actions>, and point out 'the 'world' benefited, avoiding each time the benefit to the U.S. And in only doing this, you can't check if the words match the actions (of who invaded, who suffered, who benefited)


Anyone who decides to go back and check will see what I wrote is the case.

Many on that list, you haven't done, at all.

But please, do point out the 'lie'. Provide some quotes from this thread where you are actually doing these things in blue. I say you are not (or barely) doing them. And I say you show can't differently.

You'd want an decent list, because in the length of our conversation, one example still constitutes barely.

Pearls before swine.

I think your reasoning is flawed. You are making something complicated that is not complicated at all. The only thing that is required for a person to be truthful, which is what you are talking about, is for the person to say what he believes and believe what he says. Even if a person says something that later turns out to be wrong that does not necessarily mean the person is dishonest. People can just be wrong.

True enough - however, I was talking about honesty, rather than truth. You can be truthful while being deceptive (eg leaving information out that gives another person the wrong impression), but you can't be honest while being deceptive. Honesty makes one look at their own truths when confronted with conflicting information, because doing otherwise results in self deception (and again, you can't deceive and be honest, even if it is to yourself).

That aside, if you did mean honesty:

- (Self deception is an art form for many people, so:) How do you tell if you are telling the truth to yourself?
- If the other person is telling the truth, are they being honest? (And we've established that you can deceive while telling the truth). How do you tell if another person is telling you the whole truth / being honest?
- if you repeat what another person has said, while avoiding whether or not (what they said) is the truth, is it honest for you to say it must be the truth?

Perhaps in the above questions, you'll see the difference between truth and honesty, and the difference between just saying your own truth, and repeating other peoples words and claiming them as truth...and whether or not such behaviour is honest (it can be, and it can also not be).

And in doing that, perhaps you'll see why there are behaviours associated with honesty, while your truth, as you say, only requires that you (honestly) believe it to be true.

Truth and honesty are complex terms, because humans are subjective beings with different understandings of what truth is. From BBC.com:

It is - That which dictates the 'requirements' (RULES) is the Dictator.

Why do you Accept your slavery (Bound by Rules, laws, and 'requirements') of other parties -

Are you Not, simply, a CONTENT slave. ?
'PLATO'S Cave' Ring a bell?

If you'd been born in Spain - You'd be Spanish...?

In my opinion a land invasion of Iran except for the extreme southeast corner would be impractical because the cost would be too great, but there things we could do militarily to hurt and bleed Iran. One of the most cost efficient things would be to defeat Iran in Yemen. I think that most people know that Iran is fighting a proxy war in Yemen with the goal of flanking Saudi Arabia with a hostile regime in its back yard. The first step in defeating Iran would be to block supplies reaching Iran’s puppets forces in Yemen. If that does not end the war in short order then we should take more direct action like we did in in the beginning the Afghan war. In Afghanistan, we used Special Forces and air support the aid our afghan allies. If we had to we could do the same thing in Yemen with little cost.

I'll leave war tactics up to the generals. Many top generals have made their share of mistakes during wars, but that's the way it has to be in the military.

Is Iran interfering in the ME any more than the U.S. has?

I am not a general just a military retiree, but it doesn’t a take a general to see that what is good for Iran is bad for us. When they chant death to America the great Satan they mean it. The more powerful Iran grows the worse it will be for us. It is probably true that the average Iranian doesn’t hate America, but the average Iranian is politically irrelevant. The only people in Iran really matter is the religious class.

" Is Iran interfering in the ME any more than the U.S. has? "

I can’t say, but the difference is that we have no interest in anyone’s territory. We don’t even need to buy their oil any more.

It is hard to believe but it appears that there are liberals that want Iran to win in Yemen.

Please provide evidence for your statement? Here are some facts on Iran and Yemen, and president Trump. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-donald-trump-iran-nuclear-deal

What is it to the US if Iran wins in Yemen?

That's a good question, and many wonder why the US needs to get involved in that part of the world rather than Europe. Politics is never rational; "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Alliances around the world changes all the time. Japan and Germany were our strongest enemies during WWII; now they're our closest of allies.